Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]()
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Stephen Trapani" wrote in message ... KLC Lewis wrote: The West invaded the Middle East for oil. Prior to the early 20th century, the West had little interest in the Middle East, other than for mutual, consentual trade. And even in the first half of the 20th century, the money which oil brought into the Middle East was considered fair compensation for our presence there. Until Western influence and ideals began to seriously conflict with core Muslim beliefs. Well I already anticipated this argument and addressed it before you said it. Why did we invade Afghanistan then? And when you realize you can't answer that, tag on the follow up question: Why are we still there sacrificing American lives for the sake of establishing a democracy? First, you reduce the equation too far when you assume that Afghanistan has nothing to do with oil (or more precisely, power). The Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline project has a great deal to do with America's interest in that particular country. But the fact is that our original foray into Afghanistan was viewed by virtually the entire world, including most of the Muslim world, as being righteous. And as a matter of fact, I supported it until that idiot Bush declared victory after three months and pulled out all but a relative handful of troops and invaded Iraq. That said, it is impossible for any occupying force to hold Afghanistan. The more enemies we make there, the greater the insurgency will grow, to the point that no amount of force will be able to hold it. The militant extremists will always consider Western presence in Muslim lands to be an occupation of those lands. When we put military might into those lands, we only further this belief. "We will stop raping you when you stop resisting." In what sane world does the one being raped not have the right to resist? Of course, most of the Afghanies hate the Taliban. They know the brutality that comes with them. Most Afghanies want a democracy and want the US to succeed in helping them establish that. The Taliban strategy is the same one all Muslim extremists are using nowadays. Bomb, kill and terrorize so many innocent citizens that they wish for the relative safety of the brutal Taliban government instead of terrorism. And you think the US should go ahead and let that happen? Weren't you just saying that you agreed the US should stop them? Stephen We disagree on what should be done to "stop them." You view it as a military problem -- kill them, and keep killing them until they stop fighting. I view it as a cultural problem. When we stop meddling with affairs that the vast majority of Americans cannot grasp, as they cannot empathize with any world-view other than their own, things will improve on their own. As for the Taliban, this would be the exact same group that the United States nurtured and supported when Afghanistani mujahideen were fighting against the evil Soviets. They were led by an individual called Osama bin Laden. Of course, at that time we were also best buddies with Saddam Hussein. And Saddam, bless his heart, was gassing kurds and killing Iraqi revolutionaries at that time. But who does the Taliban kill? Those who are supporting their enemies. Gee, sort of like every other government on the planet. How are they any different than the US, or Israel? |
#2
![]()
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
KLC Lewis wrote:
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message ... KLC Lewis wrote: The West invaded the Middle East for oil. Prior to the early 20th century, the West had little interest in the Middle East, other than for mutual, consentual trade. And even in the first half of the 20th century, the money which oil brought into the Middle East was considered fair compensation for our presence there. Until Western influence and ideals began to seriously conflict with core Muslim beliefs. Well I already anticipated this argument and addressed it before you said it. Why did we invade Afghanistan then? And when you realize you can't answer that, tag on the follow up question: Why are we still there sacrificing American lives for the sake of establishing a democracy? First, you reduce the equation too far when you assume that Afghanistan has nothing to do with oil (or more precisely, power). The Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline project has a great deal to do with America's interest in that particular country. Hilarious. If you can make a case for anyone wanting to take over Afghanistan for oil, then you can do it for taking over any country on earth. Nevermind that the US of course doesn't take over countries and just like they did with Japan and Italy and Iraq and every other country they've ever defeated in war, they will give them their country back with an intact democracy established, so we don't have to fight tyrants from their again. But the fact is that our original foray into Afghanistan was viewed by virtually the entire world, including most of the Muslim world, as being righteous. And as a matter of fact, I supported it until that idiot Bush declared victory after three months and pulled out all but a relative handful of troops and invaded Iraq. That said, it is impossible for any occupying force to hold Afghanistan. The more enemies we make there, the greater the insurgency will grow, to the point that no amount of force will be able to hold it. Well, good, you agree the US had and still has good reason to restore a democracy to Afghanistan. We have the same reason for being there now as we had going in the first place, to make sure there is no extremist Islamic safe haven for terrorists there. The only moral way to do that is to establish a strong democracy there. Democracies have never warred against each other. Of course we aren't trying to hold it by force. We are trying to give the country to the good people of Afghanistan, who want freedom just like all humans do. The militant extremists will always consider Western presence in Muslim lands to be an occupation of those lands. When we put military might into those lands, we only further this belief. "We will stop raping you when you stop resisting." In what sane world does the one being raped not have the right to resist? Of course, most of the Afghanies hate the Taliban. They know the brutality that comes with them. Most Afghanies want a democracy and want the US to succeed in helping them establish that. The Taliban strategy is the same one all Muslim extremists are using nowadays. Bomb, kill and terrorize so many innocent citizens that they wish for the relative safety of the brutal Taliban government instead of terrorism. And you think the US should go ahead and let that happen? Weren't you just saying that you agreed the US should stop them? Stephen We disagree on what should be done to "stop them." You view it as a military problem -- kill them, and keep killing them until they stop fighting. I view it as a cultural problem. When we stop meddling with affairs that the vast majority of Americans cannot grasp, as they cannot empathize with any world-view other than their own, things will improve on their own. You can't grasp brutal tyrannical theocracies reviled by their own citizens? Well, most Americans, not to mention most humans can. These people aren't some foreign subhuman species that like to be abused and oppressed. They're human beings just like us! As for the Taliban, this would be the exact same group that the United States nurtured and supported when Afghanistani mujahideen were fighting against the evil Soviets. They were led by an individual called Osama bin Laden. Of course, at that time we were also best buddies with Saddam Hussein. And Saddam, bless his heart, was gassing kurds and killing Iraqi revolutionaries at that time. Sometimes politics involves supporting the lesser of evils. But who does the Taliban kill? Those who are supporting their enemies. Gee, sort of like every other government on the planet. How are they any different than the US, or Israel? I advise you read _Kite Runner_ written by an Afghanie. Or find some other source about how the Taliban ran Afghanistan. My goodness. Stephen |
#3
![]()
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Stephen Trapani" wrote in message ... Democracies have never warred against each other. Stephen Hogwash. http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/demowar.htm |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|